Has Donald Trump been accused of ever doing any real physical violence? Hillary has. I don't know if the stories are true. But acting out physically is something associated with her, not him. He's a man who uses vivid words and speaks with expression. She uses flat, inexpressive language, but I've read that she's thrown things at Bill. Might be false. I'm just noting that there's nothing like that about Trump.

The story was that Hillary threw an ashtray at Bill--that's what was printed in the newspaper and that's what got the Black maid fired after many years of service (they suspected her of talking to a reporter. But it wasn't an ashtray (that's why Hillary could dent it on a technicality), it was a Lalique candy dish that was given to Nancy Reagan by the French President. The White House had to file paperwork with the GAO when it was destroyed. Woodward covered this in his book on the Clintons. Btw, it looked just like an ashtray except for the cigarette rests.

On the radio show I mentioned in the last post the DJs did come up with a funny riff on the fact that both candidates now get security briefings.

Imagine Donald Trump after the first briefing. What's he going to blurt out at his next presser. At the very least, how will he stop from bragging? 'You wouldn't believe what I just learned. Don't ask me. It's huge.'

The irony, as with the dish throwing, is that it is Hillary that has compromised national security. For Trump, of course, that may just speak to lack of opportunity.

The biggest threat Trump poses is to flood the country with a tsunami of blustering hucksterism. I suppose someone might drown in it, but I think at most we need to inspect our Trump dump sump pumps and make sure we are protected against basement flooding.Hillary, on the other hand, looks like a candidate who will bring in the midnight knock at the door. At 3:00 am, she sends her goons to get you. Just ask that goofy film-maker, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula.

I tend to agree. The fact that someone often says outrageous and/or provocative things publicly is not indicative of unstable actions. If trollish behavior did indeed lead to crazy actions we should be living in absolute anarchy, given the amount of outrageous and/or provocative trolls I've seen on the internet over the years.

Hillary always seems to be seething, barely contained rage bubbling just under the surface, so I'm not real keen of her ability to handle a crisis either. She doesn't handle stress well, it always shows, with the parched looking patchy skin and the pouchy eyes and hunched shoulders, you just have to figure she's medicated a lot of the time.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Thursday afternoon he wanted to "hit" some of the Democratic National Convention speakers "so hard" while watching them last night, including a "little guy...so hard his head would spin."

"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard," Trump said. "I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor."

Trump didn't immediately clarify what he meant, but he said he was made particularly upset by an unspecified person he called a "little guy."

Hillary's reset red button offered to Putin is a symbol of Hillary's finger on the war bottom with Russia.

The current US position on missiles in Poland and Lithuania that we say are anti missile defenses but look like Intermediate Range Nucs prohibited by treaty is the same stand off as the the Cuban Missile crisis we admit had Russia and the USA hours from nuclear war. That is the Brinksmanship legacy Obama is leaving office with. If Hillary is elected, Putin will have no other choice than war. And Obama laughs at our destruction.

I'm with John. That was a great line, because it's so true. Trump is thin-skinned and takes everything personally. Do I think he'd launch a nuclear strike? Not likely. But he'd certainly threaten to do so. It's what he does--- lash out and threaten maximum damage. He is _not_ a steady hand to have at the tiller. Hillary may not be ideal, I'll give you, but I think she is more concerned with her legacy and will also be surrounded by people to whom she will listen. Trump's ego doesn't seem to allow him to seek out 'the best and the brightest' to advise him and work for him. He prefers sycophants who let him "do the thinnin' around here," as Quick Draw McGraw used to say.

We hear a lot from the Crooked Hillary shills and bots about temperament, and how it is important. But what they intentionally ignore is that she is the one lacking a decent temperament. Her violent temper was infamous around the White House. The joke was that the Secret Service was trained and dedicated to taking bullets for the President. But we're they supposed to take a lamp aimed at him by his wife? That was a decision that they had never had to face before. Obviously, they didn't always manage to intervene, given her husband sporting a shiner in public on at least one occasion. Why did Vince Foster kill himself (which I believe he did - the alternative being that the Clintons had him killed)? One thing that we know is that shortly before he died, Crooked Hillary engaged in an epic screaming attack on him. She brought him to DC to help protect her and her husband, and much of it was from charges that she was, well, crooked and corrupt. Feds were closing in around them for helping legally to facilitate the Madison Federal pyramid scheme (where she was billing partner, and at least one of her, Foster, and Web Hubble billed for each the meetings where the crooked transactions were put together - and hence the reason the billing records were so critical). Foster seems to have had some of his ethics left, and being caught between them and her screaming rants likely was at least part of why he did what he did. Imagine a Russian or Chinese incident right after catching her husband embarrassing her with his women - can we trust that she won't respond in anger to the international provocation, when she should be reacting rationally?

Of course, it wasn't just that she has a violent temper, but also is cold, on the level of rude, to anyone she felt below her. Standing orders in the White House for the staff was that if they saw her approaching in the hall, to stand by the side and not make eye contact. Failure to abide by this was a firing offense (or reassignment for the Secret Service). She apparently studiously avoided learning their names too, or anything about them or their families. The Bushes (41 and 43) put on White House Christmas parties for the staff. Not the Clintons. But, then, George W knew everyone's name and something about their families when he lived there. The Clintons were mostly hated by the staff there, and most notably, her, and for good reason.

We don't know really how Trump is going to be, if he wins. But, at least as far as treating the staff well, I think that the thank you speech the day after the Republican Convention is encouraging. He called a lot of people out personally, including some of the people who built the stage. And thanked the Secret Service, police, mayor, etc. Any bets as to whether she does something like that today? Personally?

Shiloh--When you get back to Earth, review your own postings over the last year. You are right up there among the shit slingers and sarcasm mongers--you are just on the other side. Do I hear a call for civility? Would AA call it civility bullshit?

About your Facebook comment, wow, just wow! This line of attack is beneath you. For someone who questions the veracity of all things told, you give an awful lot of credit to negative things said about Hillary.

"But, then, George W knew everyone's name and something about their families when he lived there." Story I heard from a friend of mine, used to live on my block. He was a air force pilot and has been involved with Air Force 1; I don't know if he ever actually flew it. But when AF1 was taking off or landing, SOP was to have a communications lock-down on the base, with no messages in or out. My friend's mother Mrs. Goldman (my neighbor) tried to call him, and I guess got frantic when no one would let her through or tell her anything at all. He caught a lot of ribbing from his friends for the next few months about his mother's call.Anyhow, a few months later, Pres. Bush was waiting to fly AF1, and Goldman was around. The president, being basically a nice guy, noticed him and started chatting. When he heard his name, Pres. Bush furrowed his brow and said, "I think your mother's trying to get through to you."

First you point out that he's joked about hacking before, without noting that it was in the context of his building of his career by pushing the racist birther line.

Now rumors of Hillary throwing things in a domestic argument, dating back 25 years. Put aside that the repeated provocations of an unfaithful husband are not in the public sphere, may involve emotions unlikely to be engaged in public decision making, etc.

While this year, don't we have the actual example of Trump, at public political meetings actually urging violence against demonstrators/protesters?

"For someone who questions the veracity of all things told, you give an awful lot of credit to negative things said about Hillary." Hmm? Did Prof. Alhouse not say, "I don't know if the stories are true", and post a link to a WaPo article that goes through what is known about it?Sounds like your choice would be, Anything negative about Clinton isn't true. Not an impartial standard.

This is going to be three long months of being able to get you Althouse/Tea Pary/Trump Hillbillies to screech like stuck pigs. You are going to be miserable; the rest of us are going to love it as if we were all at the state fair!

Wait, do people actually think Trump would be more aggressive and sensitive than Hillary? I guess I can understand that, since he's an assertive and dominant male, and society today caricatures males as being out of control, but history shows that Hillary is the more dangerous one. Which candidate has supported, and even helped to plan, a disastrous Middle East war? If Hillary had gotten her way, right now there would be thousands of American troops fighting and dying in a civil war in Syria.

Rumors of Hillary throwing lamps as opposed to a video of Trump saying he wanted to hit people.

Yeah, he says he really wanted to, and he didn't. To my knowledge, Trump has no history of acting on such desires (whether they are literal or figurative). That's called restraint.

Restraint is a character trait that would, for instance, allow one to not launch nuclear weapons over a personal insult. Now, one might say something stupid without actually doing the stupid thing. Like when President Obama joked about auditing ASU after they declined to give him an honorary degree. (Then again, the Obama administration using the IRS against people they don't like turned out to be maybe not such a fanciful joke after all.)

Now rumors of Hillary throwing things in a domestic argument, dating back 25 years. Put aside that the repeated provocations of an unfaithful husband are not in the public sphere, may involve emotions unlikely to be engaged in public decision making, etc.'Bill Clinton lied under oath, was disbarred and impeached. over a sexual affair. Thats pretty public. Trump reacted to being attacked. His supporters were being attacked at almost every rally. To not react to that would be abnormal.

@Stephen - it wasn't one or two reports about her violent temper, etc, it was from a number of sources. And no reports about her sterling good character. None. Yes, it was 16-24 years ago (not 25) but one thing that I have learned as I got older is that mean people don't get mellow when they get older - they get meaner, while it is the nice people who get nicer. And, yes, there are a lot of reports and indications that she has become a drunk. What do you think alcohol does to basically mean and abusive people? Makes the nice? Who do you think is more likely to do something under the influence of alcohol while POTUS - Crooked Hillary? Or Trump?

Trump, like Bill Clinton, has been tainted by his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. Trump was recently accused of rape in a lawsuit. I doubt it's true, but you never know. And some people have speculated/wondered if Bill had sex sex with minors on Epstein's plane or at his private island.

Jeffrey Epstein could probably swing the election with a single interview.

Love all the new Crooked Hillary shill bots here. The funny thing is that their arguments almost inevitably have a similar structure here, and after you have seen a bunch of them, they start jumping out at you. I expect that these are the paid shills, the ones naking a minimum wage income jumping in here and trying to defend the undefendable. As a suggestion - look how our resident leftists like Freder do it. He doesn't sound like a paid shill, like so many of the new posters here.

Shiloh--it is hard to figure who is in the majority in the 50/50 nation. Where I live the last GOP mayor was elected in 1927. Everything is great, except the city and state are hugely in debt, the government employee pension funds are deeply under water, and the gangs on the south and west sides are in a shooting war. The cops have compromised themselves with the "close ranks" mentality. At least the park and the lake are pretty. If you have any great ideas on how to fix Chicago, call the Cook County Democratic Central Committee, because the Republicans are irrelevant.

Donald Trump's first wife stated under oath, in a deposition, that he raped her. I count that as violence. She later retracted, so it depends on whether you find her more credible pretty or post divorce setlement.

"She later retracted, so it depends on whether you find her more credible pretty or post divorce setlement."

-- If she recants, then I think you have to accept that recanting. That's basic fairness to someone accused of a crime. You don't get to KEEP accusing them of a crime if the witness says, "Wait, that didn't actually happen."

On the GOP debate stage in November, though, Trump bragged about meeting the Russian leader.

"I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night," Trump said.

Time reported that for that edition of "60 Minutes," Trump was interviewed in the United States by CBS host Charlie Rose, who then traveled to Russia to interview Putin. The two appeared on the same segment of the long-running docu-series.

Trump also said during a National Press Club luncheon in 2014 that he was in Moscow and he spoke "directly and indirectly with President Putin who could not have been nicer."

It is all about controlling speech: Hillary would like it to be illegal to criticize Hillary; see her open attempts to overturn Citizens United. She can't legally (yet) stop Trump from insulting her on Twitter, but she will try to mau mau him into desisting.

Trump bars the WaPo from all his events. How's that for controlling speech?

"It is all about controlling speech: Hillary would like it to be illegal to criticize Hillary; see her open attempts to overturn Citizens United."

I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

My Twain quote is actually aimed at me since I voted for Obama twice. But as mentioned, voted for McGovern so got used to losing and being in the minority at an early age.

Have also mentioned several times Hillary is a train wreck, but if you want to persuade me or other Dems whether moderate or otherwise to switch their vote, nominating Trump just made that decision moot.

Part of the continued entertainment is seeing Althouse and her con minions turning into a pretzel re: Trump ...

You can put lipstick and earrings on a hog and call it Monique, but it's still a pig.

The WaPo was banned because the Post printed this headline: “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.”

Then, instead of apologizing, they did a stealth edit. They demonstrated to Trump they're bad journalists. Of course he's going to disinvite them to make room for competent journalists. I don't like Trump, but denying incompetent journalists access is perfectly fine. He's still meeting with the Press, just not openly biased/incompetent press.

Torture, beyond the waterboarding sanctioned by the Bush administration, has become Trump’s leitmotif. Time and again he urges his crowds on by dangling before them the prospect of violence for violence’s sake. Time and again he flaunts his contempt for international norms by embracing torture—the word, for so long taboo, as much as the deed—as an official policy of state. And yet, he never defines exactly what sorts of state-sponsored torture he is advocating, exactly what actions he seeks to make the courts, the military, and the general public complicit in.

Have also mentioned several times Hillary is a train wreck, but if you want to persuade me or other Dems whether moderate or otherwise to switch their vote, nominating Trump just made that decision moot.

A woman who destabilized the ME, taking out Khaddafi/going after Assad, while her allies/donors/herself cashed in, resulting in how many displaced, killed, enslaved people, shouldn't be trusted with a nuclear weapon.

A woman who sends her ambassador into a hot area without proper security, and then gets him killed, and then repeatedly lies about it, shouldn't be trusted with a nuclear weapon.

A woman who sells 20% of our uranium production to Putin's Russia after the chairman from Uranium One gives her money laundering foundation a huge donation, shouldn't be trusted with a nuclear weapon.

Btw, I know of 3 people who have worked SS or security for the Clintons. Hillary was paranoid, verbally abusive, and disrespectful to the SS and didn't want them in her sight; it's true she and Bill referred to them as 'pigs'. They got along with Bill, but couldn't stand her. (It seems, over the years, other staffers have come forward with the same sort of stories.) The security detail during the '08 run, same thing. She was always late and then showed up and bitched at them. She is extremely rude to 'underlings'.

Trump has no such history. There is no trail of dead bodies or reports of security detail/employees being abused or disrespected by him.

And, contra Mrs. Clinton, it seems like it's Mr. Trump's tweets that are triggering paroxysms of outrage and hyperventilation (and this week's trap-springing). Imagine what a professional FSB maskirovka would do to Mrs. Clinton's composure...

All of Trumps former wives signed a non disclose agreement. I'd love to hear what they have to say about whether or not he was violent. He certainly has a temper. That we've all seen.

Did the non-disclosure agreement also tell them they had to come out now and praise him, like they have done? If he was a total dick to them, why would they publicly approve of his run?

Hillary, too, has a known temper. Staffers reporting the loud fights with Bill, foul language, abusive to the staff/security. Remember too, she was in charge of shutting the 'bimbos' up. Dead animals, threatening phone calls, break ins, property damage. Go look up her confrontation with Juanita Broaddrick. Kathleen Willey is on facebook and has a lot to say.

Remember Hillary going off on a student in Africa. Considering the place, the culture, possible screw up with the interpreter, and her position, did she really have to snap at him? She always seems to be >this close < to exploding over small things.

All of Trumps former wives signed a non disclose agreement. I'd love to hear what they have to say about whether or not he was violent. He certainly has a temper. That we've all seen.

Oh, how awful that the participants in a purely private legal transaction are legally bound to not discuss it!/sarc You forgot to mention if Trump, too, is bound by that same agreement. My guess is that he is.

Now, on the other, having the FBI agents who investigated Hillary's possible security violations bound by non-disclosure agreements even after the investigation is concluded, even though this involves a matter deeply important to the American electorate, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Yet, somehow, the Dems seem to be fine with that muzzling of public officials.

Althouse wrote: "...but I've read that she's thrown things at Bill. Might be false." Does no one remember retired Secret Service agent, Gary Byrne's, new book, Crisis of Character, about the Clintons? Or has it gone down the memory hole already?

Trump certainly has called for violence including torture and 'bombing the shit out of them'Trump is just too childish to ever be President.

Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods.

I don't see Trump denying them security or telling back-up to stand down. I don't see Trump even going into Syria or Libya to shake things up and cash in along with his cronies with interests in the area, like Hillary did.

She and the Dems want to make the "temperament" argument, and that's probably a good one.She and the Dems do NOT want to make the "trust" argument, since people don't trust Hillary, either. Using the word "trust" in her "good line" was a mistake.

The Left loves Bill Clinton and hates Bill Cosby. Granting that Cosby's alleged actions were more numerous (but not forgetting that Clinton himself has been credibly accused of having committed rape), why does the Left still love Clinton?

If a prominent politician defended Cosby and attacked his accusers, would that politician ever be nominated to run for President? Hard to imagine...

Trump is a loudmouth salesman, a carnival barker, who says what he feels and doesn't restrict himself to the literal truth or a consistent adherence to common public manners. Who knows what his "real" political beliefs are?

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, self-dealing conniver who amassed a personal fortune trading on her own (and her husband's) public positions and influence. She sees herself as above the rules and laws that govern others, and believes her own intent to "do good" gives her a free pass to engage in whatever behavior will advance her cause.

They're both politicians so it's silly to say "I trust" either one of 'em. But who, on paper, is more likely to do the "right thing" for the country?

Important side consideration: Which one will the Media hold accountable?

On the contrary, if he's so unstable that he would launch a nuclear strike over a tweet, wouldn't that compel other countries to be nice and play ball with us over fear of a nuclear warhead coming their way?

Kinda like the argument that we shouldn't execute crazy people who commit horrendous crimes because "they didn't know what they were doing!!". Well, doesn't that make them more likely to do it again?

shiloh said...Please remind me of any tough policy specific questions he was asked during the Rep primaries and if any did he answer said question directly.

Counterpoint: the Media WANT Trump as the Republican nominee. He's GREAT for ratings and he's one of the only candidates H. Clinton could possibly defeat. Why would the Media be tough on Trump during the primary--he's their guy?

Just for you, though, I'll be more clear: Which one, as President, would the Media hold accountable?

We KNOW the Media will cover for "historic first female President Hillary Clinton." There's almost no question--they already accept "move on" and "what difference, at this point, does it make" as acceptable answers from her. She hasn't given a press conference in, what, 250 days now, and they don't care! They don't want to be tough on her now, and they will be even less tough if she wins. We also KNOW the Media will do everything they can to find or manufacture scandal after scandal to hype against a President Trump--they would work overtime to be the ones to "bring him down." No question.

Which is healthier for a nation - a President who's constantly challenged and held accountable by the Media/press, or a President who isn't challenged, isn't held accountable, and in fact can use the Media/press as their own tool to advance their own causes/political aims?

Trump's equivalent of the lamp story is from a Mark Bowden profileI watched as Trump strutted around the beautifully groomed clay tennis courts on his estate, managed by noted tennis pro Anthony Boulle. The courts had been prepped meticulously for a full day of scheduled matches. Trump took exception to the design of the spaces between courts. In particular, he didn’t like a small metal box—a pump and cooler for the water fountain alongside—which he thought looked ugly. He first questioned its placement, then crudely disparaged it, then kicked the box, which didn’t budge, and then stooped—red-faced and fuming—to tear it loose from its moorings, rupturing a water line and sending a geyser to soak the courts. Boulle looked horrified, a weekend of tennis abruptly drowned. Catching a glimpse of me watching, Trump grimaced.

I am not enthused with someone like Donald Trump with the nuclear football. However, he is not the kind of person to nuke on a whim. Nukes are not a good way to make a deal. The sort of people you worry about are the mentally unstable who may be making a decision that makes perfectly good sense in their insanity, sociopaths/psychopaths who do not get their way and use a nuclear exchange as a temper tantrum, fanatics (religious or otherwise) who might see mushroom clouds as advancing their cause, or persons who do not understand how dangerous a nuclear exchange is (see Mao, Chairman). That's not Donald. That's not Hillary either. The only persons I can think of that were serious candidates and might be that dangerous were late-term Richard Nixon and Douglas MacArthur (maybe).

What I am worried about is mangled foreign policy that could lead to a nuclear exchange. Things are not going well. Hillary's track record on foreign policy is poor. She is endorsing the foreign policy of Obama, who's track record is, if anything, worse and involves actively giving fanatics nuclear weapons.

It says something about this election that I keep starting the voting decision with "Donald Trump should not be President..." followed by policy analysis that comes to the conclusion "...but Hillary would probably be worse."

Saw this line shared on Facebook this morning. This is the line the Hillary people want to highlight? Somebody needs to head down to Plains GA and research how well the meme "OMG the GOP nominee is going to blow up the world!!!Eleventy!!" worked.

The fundamental problem is going to be the same one Carter faced. You're a bland, eat-your-broccoli functionary vs somebody who excites people, and you're setting the bar pretty low if all Trump has to do is not look like he'll accidentally bang the Big Red Button when he's pounding on the Resolute Desk.

Have you cried wolf enough, Leftists & Media? What will you say about Trump? Oh, you're saying it: he's scary and unpredictable? You've been saying that about anyone not on the Left for my entire life! (Before that, too, of course re: Goldwater & Nixon, etc).

Why are people surprised that saying this same thing about Trump now is not very effective?

Freder Frederson said...Trump, arguably, wants to torture enemies of the United States for national security reasons.

No matter how you justify it, it still violates U.S. law and international treaties and is a crime against humanity.

7/29/16, 10:40 AM

Very well, Gustav, but how about the second part of what he said? I suspect it was ironical, and you must not confuse great things with small, but the left is vicious in things both great and small. Think of FDR making Joseph Kennedy pull his pants down for the prize of St. James' Court. There's torture. and there's sadism.

Ron said...A Secretary of State who puts an unsecured server in a bathroom is not a person who you can trust with a bb gun.--I think she just figured..well..I'm in there all the time. I'll keep an eye on it.Keep it clean..wipe it with a cloth.

And she killed Vince Foster too! Don't forget that. That was pretty violent.

She didn't kill Vomcent Foster, although I think Bill Clinton tried to cast some susoicion on her.

Saud Arabian Ambassador to the United States Prine Bandar bin Sultan probbaly killed him, when Foster demanded money buit frot about diplomatic immunity, and then went to the Whoite House to gain Bill Clinton;s support in covering it up.

Here is the smoking gun:

http://i58.tinypic.com/ih8nx3.jpg

Page 10 of the March 14, 1994 New Republic. The key words are "in July"

It's somewhat amusing when a con compares any other Rep to Dutch re: any topic. Reagan was a former Dem, president of SAG, two time governor of the largest state. btw, CA current GDP alone is the 7th/8th largest in the world.

He was a serious candidate/nominee. Part of Reagan's appeal to "Reagan Dems" was being a former Dem ie how bad can this guy possibly be. Indeed, figuratively and literally right out of central casting.

>

Reagan would have never said lyin' Ted, little Marco, crooked Hillary, etc. 'cause running for president was not a reality show to him. He would have never encouraged another country, let alone Russia, to "participate" in a presidential election.

And Reagan was very lucky to be running against a train wreck, Carter ie high gas prices, high inflation, bad economy, 444 day Iran hostage crisis, failed rescue mission, etc.

>

As mentioned previously, presidential elections are not that complicated:

LBJ/Vietnam, racial division, Chicago Dem convention beget Nixon

Nixon/Watergate beget Carter

Carter/high inflation/gas prices/Iran hostage crisis beget Reagan

Bush41/it's the economy stupid beget Clinton

Cheney/Bush/the list is too long to mention, beget Obama.

As D.L. Hughley said early 2008, Bush has screwed up soooo bad, America may elect a Black man president!

And the U.S. Supreme Court deserves partial credit for Cheney/Bush.

Indeed, one party screws up and the other party wins. Shocking!

The yin and yang of politics.

>

Currently "we" have one train wreck running against a bigger, clueless train wreck so it's a bit of a horse race.

>

And sadly for Reps, there are no more Reagan's waiting in the wings ...

If Trump does get elected, God help any little girls picking flowers in grassy fields. Trump will nuke 'em to cinders. Unlike Hillary, who would just neatly and without fuss make them disappear like Kathleen Willey's cat.